In the statement, Canton, Ohio area attorney Laura Mills described a sexual encounter her client had with Brown in the late 1980s. Brown was Ohio's Secretary of State at the time and the unnamed woman had met Brown in the course of her work.

According to Mills, Brown pushed her client up against a wall.

"She described an unexpected, uninvited, unwanted, and sudden advance, roughly pushing her up against a wall," Mills said in the statement. "It did stop after she expressed dismay and very firmly pulled away, explaining that was not her style nor why she was there. He then said he remembered what she had on the day they had met some time earlier and that he had been attracted to her."

How do you know that the advance is unwanted before you make it? Ah I forgot he is guilty of not already carrying his NPC consent kid with him back in the 80s and make her sign off on the upcoming advance. I feel bad for him but then I don't since his party is peddling this ho crap.

There is no way to know. But it's actually much worse than that. Women can retroactively change their claim of "wanted" or not. And they "must be believed" without due process. In fact, in direct opposition to due process.

The right answer is to go back to the traditional rule which is part of every major religion because of millennia of experience with such disputes:

A woman voluntarily alone with a man she is not related to must be assumed by the courts to have given consent to sex.

This leads to a corollary:

No man may require a woman to be alone with him. Not for work, education, or anything else.

There is no way to know. But it's actually much worse than that. Women can retroactively change their claim of "wanted" or not. And they "must be believed" without due process. In fact, in direct opposition to due process.

The right answer is to go back to the traditional rule which is part of every major religion because of millennia of experience with such disputes:

A woman voluntarily alone with a man she is not related to must be assumed by the courts to have given consent to sex.

This leads to a corollary:

No man may require a woman to be alone with him. Not for work, education, or anything else.

Agreed, at least it would work well on private property. On public property a man could simply intersect a woman, say in a garage or mall and impose himself and the claim well she was there voluntarily. Same of course for kidnapping or home intrusion. It would have to be refined. Also fresh signs and proof of extreme violence beyond spanking and bondage play need to ve investigated even if they were alone. This is likely never going to happen though so parents will have to equip their sons with street smarts and consent apps or make them record audio at all times at the minimum.

"She described an unexpected, uninvited, unwanted, and sudden advance, roughly pushing her up against a wall," Mills said in the statement. "It did stop after she expressed dismay and very firmly pulled away

"She described an unexpected, uninvited, unwanted, and sudden advance, roughly pushing her up against a wall," Mills said in the statement. "It did stop after she expressed dismay and very firmly pulled away"I think that is a little more than an 'Advance.'I always thought the trick was to look for a fraction of a second too long and then look away. When you look back if she is looking at you, other than glaring hate that says 'I am lesbian', you have a chance. If not, move on.